[CCAMP]Re: WG adoption call on draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang-06

[[e-mail]]

Hi WG, and authors. 

 

I support adoption of draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang. 

 

>From an industry perspective, fgOTN is clearly gathering pace and part of
OTN technology stack so it makes sense to progress the work in CCAMP. 

 

The draft addresses a useful YANG-based management and control need for
topology/resource reporting and tunnel provisioning. 

 

Overall, the modeling direction is appropriate: the draft builds on the
existing CCAMP/TEAS OTN topology and tunnel work, rather than introducing a
separate framework, which is great. 

 

The draft has more than enough technical substance for WG adoption, but
there are several threads that will need attention, assuming the WG adopts
the work. These include:

 

- Ensuring alignment with the latest CCAMP/TEAS base YANG model revisions.

- Bandwidth and timeslot-related attributes: some leaves are currently plain
string, easy to have incompatible implementations. Maybe use explicit
typedefs, numeric ranges/units based on current industry agreement to help
interoperability

- Clarification of config versus operational state: we just need to be clear
about which data is configuration and which data is operational. For
example, available bandwidth and reserved timeslots is that really
configuration (current rw nodes), or is it operational.

- Usual expansion/detail in/of Manageability, Security, and IANA
considerations.

 

BR, Dan.  

 

From: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <dceccare=[e-mail]> 
Sent: 18 June 2026 16:08
To: CCAMP <[e-mail]>
Subject: [CCAMP]WG adoption call on draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang-06

 

Hi working group,
 
The IPR polling related to
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang/>
draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang-06 has been completed. 
This starts a working group adoption call on draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang-06.
The polling will last 2 weeks till Friday July 3rd.
 
 
Thanks,
Daniele, Fatai, Luis